Paternalism and Suffrage

Paternalism is the central motivation behind many government policies and programs. The basic argument is that some people cannot be trusted to behave responsibly, and so the government should step in and make decisions on their behalf.

Take for instance the two major entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, which together constitute over half of federal spending. It is hard to justify these programs for any reason other than paternalism.

The government mandates participation in various insurance programs, for instance disability and unemployment; public benefits are often not in the form of a simple cash transfer but instead tied to certain goods and services like food, health care, and housing; the government is extensively involved in the education sector.

Many people would like the government to expand the range and scope of its paternalism. Should people, for instance, be free to decide how much and how to invest for retirement?

The underlying premise, however, leads to a dilemma: if people are incapable of responsible behavior, then how can we trust them to delegate decisions to others? In particular, if someone can’t take care of their personal finances or health, then how can they be expected to vote for a politician who will responsibly do this for them? Wouldn’t choices by “irresponsible” people in the voting booth almost by definition lead to irresponsible policy?

In addition, people face very different incentives in the voting booth than for decisions in their personal lives. For personal decisions people have a clear view of the situation at hand and a strong incentive to make the best decisions. In the voting booth, by contrast, incentives and information are weak for voters and politicians alike.

Government paternalism is thus logically incompatible with universal suffrage. If the government is making personal decisions for people, then those people should not be allowed to vote.

We do in fact restrict voting rights today, with irresponsibility being the justification. Children are not allowed to vote, as are (in many states) felons. People who are under legal guardianship often lose the right to vote because they are deemed “mentally incompetent”. It is estimated that about 1.3 million people in the US are under guardianship.

Do these restrictions ensure that all voters are responsible enough to make government paternalism unnecessary? If not, what additional criteria might we consider?

One possibility is that the government closely scrutinizes people’s choices and behavior in a way similar to the “social credit system” currently being developed by the Chinese government. If a person is not acting responsibly (for instance, not saving enough money) then the government would step in and temporarily or permanently suspend their voting rights. As with parenting, responsibilities can be granted or revoked based on demonstrated behavior. Many would object to this, however, given that the government would be significantly invading people’s privacy.

Are there less intrusive alternatives? Perhaps there are characteristics that are predictive of a person’s responsibility. We could for instance look at financial indicators such as income and assets. In the early years of the US voters were required to own land (and, of course, be white and male). Another historical example is the requirement that voters pay a poll tax, but this was outlawed in 1964 by the 24th Amendment.

We could consider use of welfare programs. But someone on welfare is
not necessarily irresponsible: they may simply need assistance because they lack the skills to earn a decent living. Indeed the motivations for government assistance and paternalism are quite distinct: assistance allows poorer citizens to enjoy a materially better quality of life by forcing wealthier citizens to help out financially, while paternalism means forcing people to behave in better ways for their own good.

Another possible criterion is education. Voting could for example be limited to people with at least an undergraduate degree. It has also been proposed that voters should pass a test. This could be a test of either general intelligence or knowledge. One option is the civics test taken by foreigners applying for US citizenship. The US had literacy tests in the past, but these were abolished as they were seen to especially disenfranchise African Americans.

Each alternative has its problems. Moreover, there are important moral questions involved, especially since any restriction arguably creates a potentially large group of second-class citizens. Do we want to revert to a class society, where a small, smart, and privileged group gets to impose its will on the rest of us? In addition, wouldn’t taking away important responsibilities lead us to an ever more irresponsible and enfeebled populace?

One may argue that, yes, some people are irresponsible, but this is probably a small fraction, maybe 10%. The other 90% can therefore be trusted to elect a responsible (and paternalistic) government. Even though the 10% will make poor voting choices, this won’t matter much given their small numbers. Moreover, voting rights are sacrosanct and efforts to restrict them should not be taken lightly. I agree: voting rights should indeed only be restricted after careful consideration. But I also believe that the same degree of consideration should be applied when restricting people’s other rights and freedoms, and paternalism limits freedom in clear and fundamental ways.